Naive Nancy, Selfish Sam, and Fair-minded Fran

First, meet Naive Nancy. Here is what she might say of herself
(if she could clearly see how she uses thinking to deal with the
world):

“I don't need to think! I understand everything without thinking.

L just do whatever occurs to me to do. I believe most of what I
hear. I believe most of what I see on TV. I don’t see why I
should question either. And I don’t need to waste a lot of time
trying to figure things out. Why should I, when someone will
figure things out for me if I wait long enough? It’s a lot easier
to say I ‘can’t!’ than to do a lot of work. My parents and my
teachers take care of me when I can’t take care of myself. The
other day l was having trouble with my Math homework and started
to cry, so my father did it for me. My parents give me a lot of
help. It’s easier that way. I do what I'm told, keep my mouth
shut, and go along with whatever my friends decide. I don’t like
to make waves. Thinking gets you into trouble."

Next, meet Selfish Sam. Here is what he might say (If he could
clearly see how he uses thinking to deal with the world):

“I think a lot! It helps me trick people and get what I want. I

believe whatever I want to believe, whatever gets me what I want.
I question anyone who asks me to do what I don't want to do. I
figure out how to get around my parents. I figure out how to get
other kids to do what I want them to do. I even figure out how to
avoid thinking if l want. Sometimes I say ‘I can’t’ when I know I
could but don’t want to. You can get what you want from people if
you know how to manipulate them. Just the other night, I got to
stay up till 11:00 pm. by arguing with my mother about bedtime!
It helps me to tell people what they want to hear. Of course,
sometimes what they want to hear isn’t true; but that doesn't
matter because you only get into trouble when you tell people
what they don’t want to hear. You can always trick people if you
know how. Guess what, you can even trick yourself if you know
how.”
Next, meet Fair-minded Fran. Here Is what she might say (if she
could clearly see how she uses thinking to deal with the world):

"I think a lot. It helps me to learn. It helps me figure things

out. I want to understand my parents and my playmates. In fact, I
even want to understand myself and why I do things. Sometimes I
do things that I don’t understand. It’s not easy trying to
understand everyone and everything. Lots of people say one thing
and do another. You can’t always believe what people say. You
can't believe a lot of what you see on TV. People often say
things not because they mean them but because they want things
and are trying to please you. I would like to make the world a
better place. l want to make it better for everyone, not just for
me and my friends. To understand other people you have to look at
things as they do. You have to understand their situation and
what you would feel like you were them. You have to put yourself
on their shoes. The other night I got mad at my sister because
she wanted to watch a TV program that was at the same time my
favorite show was on. I didn’t want to let her until I realized
that she needed to watch her program to do some homework for
school. I knew then that it wouldn’t be fair of me to insist on
my show, since she did have to do her homework for school. It
isn't easy to be fair. It’s a lot easier to be selfish and just
think about yourself. But if I don’t think about others, why
should they think about me? I want to be fair to others because I
expect everyone to be fair to me.”

The distinction between uncritical thinking and critical

thinking, on the one hand, and between selfish and fair-minded
critical thinking on the other hand, underlies our whole approach
to critical thinking. It highlights the danger of focusing on
critical thinking skills alone, independent of critical thinking
values.

Pair and Share

1. Do you see any similarities with your friends or neighbors?

_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
____________________________________

2. Do you see yourself in any of the above hypothetical

characters? Why? Why not?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
____________________________________

.........
The Two Independent Thinking Styles: Rationality and Intuition

Adapted from the Introduction written by Cilia Witteman, John van den Bercken, Laurence Claes,
and Antonio Godoy

In their numerous publications on heuristics and biases in reasoning since 1974, Tversky and
Kahneman, with most judgment and decision researchers in their footsteps, have portrayed
analysis as the rational thing to do, at all times outperforming intuition. They have shown that
people’s performance systematically deviates from this rational norm, and that people use
heuristics instead of following the correct rules of logic and probability theory.

Recently, they have come to call such heuristics "intuitions,” and to recognize that they are
valuable in their own right (Kahneman 2003). Other researchers also increasingly find evidence
that, depending mainly on the complexity of the task, intuitive thinking can be as powerful and
accurate as analysis (Dijksterhuis 2004; Klein 2003; Witteman & Van den Bercken 2007).

When tasks cannot be performed through analysis, for example, when they require pattern
recognition or when they are complex and time pressure is high, intuition may be the more
advantageous thinking style (see also De Vries, Holland, & Witteman 2008; Wilson 2002). Dual-
process theories aim to clarify the distinction between intuition and deliberation. They typify
intuitive processing as preconscious, closely associated with affect, fast, and operating in an
automatic, holistic manner; and rational thinking is characterized as slow, deliberative, rule-
governed, primarily verbal and conscious (Epstein 1990, 2008; see also Evans 2008; Hammond
1996; Hogarth 2005; Kahneman 2003; Kahneman & Frederick 2002; Sloman 1996; Stanovich &
West 2000). In his cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST; e.g., Epstein 1990, 1994, 2008;
Epstein, Pacini, Denes-Raj, & Heier 1996), Epstein talks of rational processes and experiential
processes, broadly contrasting conscious reasoning and automatic learning.
People use both processes interactively, yet they have been found to differ in whether they
habitually respond primarily rationally or intuitively to decision situations, or whether they
prefer to follow their heart or their head (e.g., Langan-Fox & Shirley 2003).

What is interesting for our purpose is that Epstein and colleagues have developed a
questionnaire, based on the CEST, to measure a person’s habitual preference for either of the
two styles: the Rational Experiential Inventory (REI; Pacini &Epstein 1999). The REI has been
validated in several studies by Epstein and colleagues, and also in a study in Israel (Shiloh,
Salton, & Sharabi 2002), in which support was found for individual differences in the two
thinking styles, with rational but not experiential thinking positively correlated with normative-
statistical responses in judgment tasks.

The preferred strategy is thought to generally prevail in reasoning tasks, although there
obviously is interaction with the demands of and experience with the situation (e.g., Epstein
1990; Hogarth 2005; Pacini & Epstein 1999). Since both rationality and intuition now seem to be
valuable thinking tools, it is of interest to look at them more closely, and to look at the relations
between these preferred styles and personality characteristics.

We think of people as predominantly rational or more intuitive, as in precise mathematicians

and emotional artists. Looking at the correlates of both processing styles with personality
characteristics, it is plausible to expect that the deliberate and verbal process, rationality, is the
preferred style of the conscientious person.

Pacini and Epstein (1999), indeed, found a significant correlation between rationality and
conscientiousness. Since we have, in advance, no reasons to expect different relations between
preferences for thinking styles and personality characteristics with people in different cultures,
we expected similar relations in our Dutch and Spanish samples to those reported by Pacini and
Epstein (1999). That is: we expected rationality to be most strongly related to low neuroticism,
to openness to experience, and to conscientiousness; less strongly, but still significantly, to
extraversion; and not at all to agreeableness.

(Exercise 1) Answer the following questions:

1. Why can intuitive thinking be as powerful and accurate as analysis?

2. Why did the authors say that intuition may be the more advantageous thinking style?

3. Are you an intuitive thinker? Why? Why not?

(Exercise 2)
1. Why do you think Rommel has labeled the jar of sugar “Salt”?
2. What thinking did he use? Intuitive or strategic? Why?
3. What is lacking in his problem solving?

(Exercise 3)

1. When and how do I apply strategic thinking?

2. When and how do I apply intuitive thinking?

3. When and how do I employ the two?